On the Source of Lefthand NPs in French

Hirschbühler, Paul

doi:10.1075/la.14.06hir

Cited by 12 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…HTLD is typically analyzed as base generation (see, for example, Hirschbühler 1997Hirschbühler [1974 (Bailyn 2012: 268) Unlike other languages, Russian does not use clitics, so the overt expression of the contrast between base-generated and moved LD is minimal.…”

Section: And Numerous Other Work) (11c) Illustrates Germanic Contramentioning

confidence: 99%

“… Carambolas , I don't like __ . A Gianni , Maria gli ha parlato recentemente.to Gianni Maria 3sg.dat has speak. ptcp recently‘To Gianni, Maria spoke to him recently.’(Italian; Rizzi 1997: 294) Die man , die ken ik niet.that man dem know I not‘That man, I don't know.’(Dutch; Vat 1997: 70) Carambolas , I don't like them . Paul , Pierre vient de se battre avec cet idiot .Paul Pierre come C refl fight with this idiot‘Paul, Peter has just fought with that idiot.’(French; Hirschbühler 1997[1974]: 56)…”

Section: Russian Topic Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the latter, the left dislocated element is linked to its clause-internal position via interpretive mechanisms. HTLD is typically analyzed as base generation (see, for example, Hirschbühler 1997[1974] and de Cat 2007 on French) while CLLD/CLD receive movement analyses.…”

Section: Russian Topic Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Left edge topics in Russian and the processing of anaphoric dependencies

Polinsky

Potsdam

2014

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper investigates the cost of processing syntactic vs. extra-syntactic dependencies. The results support the hypothesis that syntactic dependencies require less processing effort than discourse-derived dependencies do (Koornneef 2008, Reuland 2001, 2011. The point is made through the analysis of a novel paradigm in Russian in which a preposed nominal stranding a numeral can show number connectivity (PAUCAL) with a gap following the numeral or can appear in a non-agreeing (PLURAL) form:(1) cathedral-PAUCAL/PLURAL, there were three.PAUCAL__ Numerous syntactic diagnostics confirm that when there is number connectivity, the nominal has been fronted via A'-movement, creating a syntactic A'-chain dependency. In the absence of connectivity, the construction involves a hanging topic related via discourse mechanisms to a base-generated null pronoun. The constructions constitute a minimal pair and Reuland's proposals correctly predict that the A'-movement construction will require less processing effort compared to the hanging topic construction. A self-paced reading study for contrasting pairs as in (1) showed a statistically significant slow down after the gap with the hanging topic as opposed to the moved nominal. We take this to support the claim that a syntactic A'-chain is more easily processed than an anaphoric dependency 3 involving a null pronoun, which must be resolved by discourse-based mechanisms. 4 INTRODUCTIONNatural languages encode anaphoric dependencies in a number of ways. Safir (2004, 2008) introduces the term COCONSTRUAL as a theory-neutral label for any identity relation between two elements, pronounced or not. Coconstruals include antecedent-anaphor relations, filler-gap dependencies, control relations, variable binding, and independent coreference, among others, as illustrated in (1).(1) (a) Mike hurt himself. (c) The construction of syntactic coconstruals requires less effort than the construction of discourse coconstruals.One challenge in testing these claims is to find coconstruals of the different types that nonetheless represent minimal pairs. The goal is to avoid differences in the constructions that might influence the time course of processing, independent of the coconstrual type of interest, so that any processing differences can be that constructions involving movement will be easier to process than similar constructions with no movement. We introduce two syntactic constructions in Russian that will bear on this issue; they appear minimally different on the surface but involve distinct structures.The contrast is illustrated in (9). A nominal is fronted, stranding a modifying numeral. The nominal can appear in a form that agrees in number with the numeral, (9a), or it can appear in a non-agreeing plural form, (9b). We will show that the construction in (9a) involves A'-movement of the fronted element, and thus instantiates a syntactic coconstrual between the nominal and the empty category indicated as a struck-through copy. In contrast, (9b) involves coreference between the f...

show abstract

Section: And Numerous Other Work) (11c) Illustrates Germanic Contramentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Russian Topic Constructionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Left edge topics in Russian and the processing of anaphoric dependencies

Polinsky

Potsdam

2014

J. Ling.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In strictly linear terms, both involve the presence of a subject NP and a subject clitic to the left of the verb (cf. Ashby, 1988;Barnes, 1985Barnes, , 1986Hirschbuhler, 1975;Lambrecht, 1981); however, the two can be distinguished by several tests, as exemplified in Roberge (1990). On the prosodic level, these two kinds of "double" subjects are distinguishable in that a left-dislocated subject may be separated from the verb by a pause and can bear contrastive or emphatic stress.…”

Section: Subject Doubling Versus Left-dislocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subject NP doubling, matching, and minority French

Nadasdi

1995

Lang Var Change

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ABSTRACTii^BAOIBC LluKAiuCuOur study presents a variationist analysis of subject doubling in the French of Ontario, Canada. Two principal variants are distinguished: a non-doubled variant and a doubled variant containing a clitic agreement marker. In our analyses, both linguistic and social factors are taken into account and analyzed using GOLDVARB2. It is proposed that subject clitics are marked for default features, and that the doubled variant is favored when the clitic's default features match those of the subject NP; lack of matching favors the non-doubled variant. Discussion of linguistic factors for the present study, therefore, is limited to those factors which can be explained in terms of matching. The principal social factor studied is restricted language use (cf. Mougeon & Beniak, 1991). Our results show that the greater the restriction, the fewer doubled subjects one finds.

show abstract

“…In other words, the dislocated constituent is largely assumed to be in a non-argument position through adjunction to the sentence which, along with the coreferential resumptive pronoun, is assumed to be inserted directly from the lexicon into the syntactic structure of the sentence rather than having been derived through movement operations (van Riemsdijk 1997: 3). For cogent arguments against Ross's transformational description of LD, see van Riemsdijk and Zwarts (1974), Rodman (1974) Hirschbühler (1975, Gundel (1975), Chomsky (1977), Rivero (1980), Radford (1988), Haegeman (1991), van der Spuy (1993), Rodman (1997), van Riemsdijk (1997; and pertaining to Biblical Hebrew in particular, see Naudé (1990). Moreover, for a base-generated description of English LD, see Rodman (1974), Hirschbüler (1975), van Riemskijk and Zwarts (1974, Chomsky (1977), Vat (1981), Cinque (1983), BarcelonaSanchez (1988), Lasnik and Saito (1992), and Lyons (1999 Unlike both the canonical and fronting constructions in (2a) and (2b), the coreferential resumptive pronoun it in (2c) satisfies the valency requirement of the verb saw, thus orphaning, or dislocating the leftmost NP This movie outside of the semantic and syntactic dependency relations licensed by the predicate.…”

Section: Syntactico-semantic Features: Generalization and Classificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Left Dislocation: A Typological Overview

Westbury

2016

SPILPLUS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Left Dislocation construction is a typologically universal phenomenon that has received detailed analysis, from both formal and functional perspectives, in a number of genetically and areally diverse languages. The present paper aims to provide a general overview of this crosslinguistic research with a concentration on: 1) the comparison of syntactico-semantic features of LD across languages, 2) the generalized cross-linguistic patterns and categories attested for LD, and 3) the explanations offered for LD in terms of its motivation and function in discourse. Accordingly, the paper will proceed in two parts. The first part will entail a brief survey of the syntactic and semantic attributes that have established LD as a typological category. In light of these attributes, linguists generally distinguish between two broad types of LD on the basis of particular syntactic patterns and constraints. Thus, a general description of these types is provided, along with a brief description of several less prototypical LD types. The second part of the paper will focus on the explanation of LD both in terms of the cognitive and contextual constraints that motivate its use in discourse, as well as the communicative goals and pragmatic effects achieved by the construction in particular contexts.

show abstract

On the Source of Lefthand NPs in French

Cited by 12 publications

References 0 publications

Left edge topics in Russian and the processing of anaphoric dependencies

Left edge topics in Russian and the processing of anaphoric dependencies

Subject NP doubling, matching, and minority French

Left Dislocation: A Typological Overview

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About